Latest Cases

Housing – Local authority. The issue on the appeal concerned the proper construction of standard leases granted by a local authority to its tenants, and, in particular, whether it was entitled to charge certain management/administration charges as part of the service charge recoverable under the lease. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that, on the true construction of the lease, the management costs of performing those services were recoverable as a service charge. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The claimant prisoner serving a life sentence for murder sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to move him to open conditions, following the parole board's recommendation for such move. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to reach a different conclusion from the parole board and that his reasons for doing so had been sufficient. Further, R (on the application of Evans) v Her Majesty's Attorney General ([2014] 3 All ER 682) had not changed the context for reviewing the Secretary of State's decision, which had passed the applicable test. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant company brought proceedings concerning an allegedly lost opportunity to develop oil reserves in Kurdistan. Its claim was funded by a number of parties (the costs defendants). The claim was dismissed in its entirety and an order was made for indemnity costs. The Commercial Court made orders as to how the costs should be divided between the costs defendants. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellants appealed against orders for their extradition to Lithuania on accusation warrants. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeals, held that it was impossible to say that it had to be assumed that the situation in the Vilnius arrest house, save for four cells, was such as to amount to a breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, such as to bar extradition. Further, the third appellant's return would not be oppressive or a disproportionate interference with his private life. 

Settlement – Variation of trusts. The proceedings concerned three related claims. In each case, the claimant was the settlor of a trust. The claimant sought an order, under s 1 of the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, approving an arrangement proposed to be entered into in relation to an existing trust on the grounds that the arrangement was for the benefit of the minor beneficiaries under that trust and for the benefit of future, yet unborn, beneficiaries under that trust. The Chancery Division refused an application for the hearing to be held in private, ruling, among other things, that the alleged risk that a hearing in open court would lead to the company's customers becoming aware of the levels of profit made by the company had not satisfied the requirement of clear and cogent evidence justifying derogation from the open justice principle. Reporting restrictions were imposed to protect the identity of the children. The court further held that it was appropriate to make an order approving the arrangement under the 1958 Act. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Latvia to face trial for two drug offences, concerning possession of small quantities of cannabis, with a minimum term of five years' imprisonment in the event of conviction. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it was impossible to say that a minimum five-year sentence was proportionate. It was simply so disproportionate that extradition to face trial for that offence, risking conviction and the certainty on conviction of such a sentence would be disproportionate. 

Libel and slander – Damages. The claimant companies brought an action in defamation and libel against the defendants. The claimants were granted interim injunctions against each of the defendants and there was also an order made against the fifth defendant which related to solicitation of the claimants' customers and inducement of breach of contract. Judgment in default of defence was obtained by the claimants against the first, second, fourth and fifth defendants by order and the claimants applied for damages. The Queen's Bench Division held that the right award of general damages in the case of the first claimant was one of £75,000. 

Criminal law – Indecent assault. The defendant had been convicted of three offences of indecent assault contrary to s 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment on each count concurrent. The offences had taken place in the 1970s when the defendant was an Anglican priest and the complainant resident in a local authority care home. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction and held, amongst other things, that it had not been demonstrated to the judge that irredeemable prejudice had been done to the defendant's case as a result of missing contemporaneous records. The defendant's appeal against sentence was allowed and the sentence reduced to concurrent sentences of nine months' imprisonment. The court noted that the defendant's physical and mental health was steadily deteriorating. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment for swindling and to face trial for driving without a licence. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, held that the fact that the appellant served had nearly two years' imprisonment overall was crucial and the reality was that, unless he was able to involve himself properly in family proceedings, the chances of him being able to maintain family unity were slight. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Afghan national issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the defendant Secretary of State had erred in granting him discretionary leave to remain, rather than indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, having concluded that illegality or error in the public law sense had not been established in relation to an earlier decision, there could be no basis for saying that the Secretary of State ought to have corrected an injustice by granting indefinite leave to remain.